Opinion

The Abiola Ajimobi I knew | By Adeolu Akande

Published

6 years ago

July 5, 2020

Senator Abiola Ajimobi went the way of all flesh on June 25, 2020. I had the privilege of serving as Chief of Staff to Governor Ajimobi in the first half of his first term in office. I parted ways with him politically some years ago.

Nevertheless, I feel obliged to record my knowledge of him for posterity.

I met Senator Ajimobi for the first time in 2006. I was involved in a project to develop a blueprint for the development of Nigeria, and I was detailed to invite Senator Ajimobi who was then the Chairman of Senate Committee on Environment to speak on the subject. We related briefly again shortly after at the formation of the Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD) before he finally opted to contest the 2007 gubernatorial election on the platform of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP). In 2009, we worked more closely as he struggled to reclaim the mandate he believed he won in the 2007 election. We met virtually every evening in Abuja and threw our contacts into the effort to reclaim the mandate. Expectedly, some of the meetings segued into a discussion about the path to the development of Oyo State, and there was absolutely no doubt that he was prepared to give the state a different paradigm of leadership. The quest for the mandate also brought out his innate qualities as an organiser and a believer in probity.

I recall a particular incident. One of the associates in the effort to reclaim the mandate had introduced Senator Ajimobi to a prominent Nigerian. At the meeting held in the Abuja residence of the businessman, he left no one in doubt of his capacity to deliver on the project as he made telephone calls to some individuals who were to play a critical role in the determination of the matter. But this was to be at a cost. Ajimobi was to sign an Irrevocable Standing Order for the deduction of N1.5 Billion from the monthly federal allocation to the state for one year as fee for the service. Even with the almost absolute assurance that he would become the Governor, he declined. As we drove out of the Asokoro residence of the highly connected businessman, one of those in the backseat of the car exasperatingly wondered aloud “is this man (Ajimobi) ok?. It was later that I realised that Ajimobi heard the offensive comment but chose to ignore it. “Is this how they govern Nigeria?,” he repeatedly asked as he told the contact who took us to the businessman that he would never sign off the money of the state to become the Governor. When we returned home to review the meeting, he insisted that although he craved the office of Governor, he would not sign off the resources of the state to satisfy his ambition. He recalled how he was one of the very few senators who rejected the N50 Million offer to amend the constitution to remove the tenure limit on the office of the president in 2006 and how much he knew his father would be proud of him in his grave.

It was judgement day in 2009. We crowded into the living room of one of his supporters to watch the television broadcast of the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which was the final court in gubernatorial disputes at the time. There was a power outage, and we hurriedly headed to the residence of another of Ajimobi’s supporters, on the other side of Abuja. Within five minutes of the commencement of the judgement, it was evident that we had lost the case. It was a deeply humbling and disconcerting experience to see adults crying and howling as the reality dawned on all of us. Down the drain went the ambitions and aspirations of many of us who were already occupying positions in the imaginary government. The only person who remained calm was Ajimobi as he joked about the contorted mouths of crying adults. He cheered us up with jokes and assurances that we lost because it was not yet God’s time for him to be Governor.

At the next meeting of the group, he came with his diary and his notes on why he thought we lost the case. He shared his ideas about what we needed to begin to do in earnest if we were going to win in the next election. I recall that the most important of the factors were the choice of political party and funds for political engagement. He argued that if he had contested on the platform of either of the biggest parties of the time, the PDP and AC, he would have either won at the polls or successfully reclaimed his mandate in the court. He went to work immediately and got himself on the ticket of the Action Congress (AC) for the 2011 gubernatorial election. He never considered the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) at any point in his political career because he said his father, as a progressive, will never forgive him if he joined the PDP, which he regarded as a conservative party.

ELECTION AND THE FORMATION OF THE AJUMOSE GOVERNMENT

Ajimobi’s prognosis of the 2011 elections was correct with prophetic exactitude. He was a very strategic person. He put together the building blocks of his plans years ahead of the destination. He won the election and went on to form his government. I worked with him closely in the weeks leading to the election. He was a man committed to endless meetings. He resumed at every meeting with his diary full of notes from interactions with politicians and power brokers in the state and as I later found out, his nightly reflections. He was never shy of revisiting issues and changing his position in the face of superior logic. He was good at defining problems and proffering solutions. “You can solve any problem if you define it accurately. If need be, you only need to re-context the problem”, he would say.

He interviewed many people for the principal offices in his government, notably those of Secretary to the Government, Chief of Staff, Head of Service, Commissioner for Finance, Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Commissioner for Works and Commissioner for Education, among others. I sat in on some of the meetings as I played the role of coordinator of the nascent Governor’s Office in his Oluyole Estate residence. For each of the offices, he had defined the roles he would assign to them and the personal qualities he wanted in the appointees. For the appointment of Commissioners, Special Advisers and Senior Special Assistants, he requested the party at the local government level to make nominations into a pool from which he filled the offices. He ended up with over 1000 Curricula Vitae to scrutinise to fill those offices. I recall that on the deadline he set for himself on the appointment of commissioners, we worked in the office till 5.30 a.m. He made telephone calls to some nominees in those early hours to make clarifications on their CVs. Many of the successful nominees made the list because the Governor was impressed that they could make coherent clarifications in those hours of the day, where many others didn’t pick their calls or had switched off their phones. In one particular instance, he changed his choice for an office because someone unknown to him had presented an incredibly intimidating CV. At about 3 a.m., he put a call to the nominee and the nominee unexpectedly picked his call. The Governor introduced himself and sought clarification on some of the claims in the CV. Then he asked him why he was awake at that hour of the day, and the nominee responded that he had a deadline to meet in another two days but preferred to complete his task ahead of time. He offered him the post immediately. When we reminded him that he had rejected some other nominees because he claimed to have made up his mind on someone for that office, which was truly critical to his priorities, he retorted “Kama paro fun’rawa, CV eyan wa o da to eleyi, A ma wa nkan mi fun. (Don’t let us deceive ourselves; the CV of my preferred candidate is not as good as that of this person. We will give our candidate something else.”)

He ended up with an outstanding cabinet and one of the most resourceful teams I have ever worked with. Cabinet meetings were always very engaging, and members had to work hard on their papers before coming into the chambers for presentation. He introduced many members to PowerPoint and the rudiments of high-level presentations. He abhorred mediocrity and ruffled the feathers of some members with his blunt and brutal assessments. When the exigencies of politics made it ill-advised to remove some commissioners, he introduced the committee system to carry out some assignment which he felt one or two members of the cabinet could not successfully carry out.

He came into government with a clear vision to return Oyo State to her previous position as a major economic player in the Nigerian federation. To accomplish this, his priorities were security, infrastructure development, functional free education and revitalisation of agriculture with emphasis on large-scale commercial farming driven by the private sector. He set up a policy advisory council with members drawn from the academia and the private sector. He prioritised the Ibadan Circular Road that was initiated by Governor Rasidi Ladoja and sought to execute it in a modular form beginning from the Lagos-Ibadan

Express Road /Ibadan-Ife Road axis. It was to be executed by a private investor, and the proceeds from the toll collection would be deployed to develop the second half of the project. He planned to open up the state through the dualisation of entry- points to the state capital and major towns in the state. He placed the establishment of a technical university on the same pedestal and envisioned the resolution of the crisis between Osun and Oyo States on the ownership of Ladoke Akintola University. He was part of the initiative to make Asiwaju Bola Tinubu the Chancellor of the University believing that being the political leader of the incumbent governors of both states, he could authoritatively help resolve the crisis on the matter.

HIS WORK ETHIC

He was a hard taskmaster who expected everyone to work at his speed and with the same attention to detail. He worked late into the night. He came to the office about 9 a.m. and hardly left before midnight to consult with critical stakeholders in the state on issues under consideration or resume his daily nightly meetings at the Government House. What many regarded as one of his shortcomings early in the administration was his preference for endless meetings. Ajimobi would schedule meetings with different groups on the same matter even when commissioners felt the issues were not as complex as to warrant so many meetings. He always argued that the essence of such meetings was not only to arrive at a consensus but to let the people know that government decisions were taken after due consultation. He had an incredible energy for meetings and an equally incredible intellect to synthesize diverse and divergent outcomes of such meetings.

He was an avid reader. His experience at Shell Petroleum exposed him to many specialties, and he complemented the knowledge by reading wide. He would take his time to read on any subject under the consideration of government and was never shy of asking for the guidance of those he believed were knowledgeable in the field. Even before commissioners at cabinet meetings, he would place calls to governors in other states who had tackled the problems before and ask them how they handled such situations. In many instances, he dispatched his commissioners and top officials to other states to understudy how certain programmes were executed. I recall when we attended the launch of the OponImo project in Osun State. He expressed his displeasure and agony sitting through such a laudable programme while he would have preferred to host the other states as the initiator of such a project. “Anyway, if you cannot initiate such a programme, you should at the minimum be able to replicate it. At least, let us know we are paying you for something”, he charged openly at his commissioners in the Coaster bus taking members of the cabinet back to Ibadan from the Osun State capital. He sent his commissioner and top officials to Lagos State to understudy town planning and housing estate development. He led a delegation to Rivers and Imo States to understudy certain programmes of the states. He asked his commissioners to replicate and improve upon the initiative on the management of the property ownership in Ogun State among many others. Beyond Governors, he was always in constant touch with critical stakeholders in decision making. He never shied away from contacting people with requisite academic and professional experience to guide his thoughts on any matter he was contemplating. One of such people that he was always in contact with was the late Alhaji Arisekola Alao, the highly influential Aare Musulumi of Yorubaland. We visited his Oluwo Nla residence regularly at night where the Governor had scheduled meetings with prominent traditional rulers and indigenes of the state on contentious issues before the government.

HIS CAPACITY TO SAY “NO”

One major attribute of Ajimobi was his ability to look many prominent people in the eye and say “No” to their requests. His argument was always that he would be shortchanging the people of the state if he acceded to many of such requests, which he considered self-serving. I recall when some elders visited him in the Governor’s Office with what they called an “urgent and important message”. The message was that Ibadan people were not happy with his government over certain issues, which they outlined. “Who are the Ibadan people that are angry?” he asked them in Yoruba language and before they could answer, he continued,” I am an Ibadan man and I am not angry with the government”. He dismissed their requests, which he said were disguised in the garb of Ibadan interest whereas they were purely personal. On one other occasion, in the aftermath of the sacking of some civil servants who were indicted for falsifying their academic and birth certificates, some elders came to complain that majority of those sacked were from Ibadan. He looked at them for a moment and replied: “Baba, you know that majority of the civil servants are from Ibadan, and by law of proportion, they will form a larger percentage of those we are sacking especially if the same proportion is reflected in the number of those who committed the offence.

Besides, I’m sorry to ask, Baba, did they get the approval of Ibadan people before they falsified their certificates?Once,when some elders from the Oke Ogun area of the state met the governor about the underdevelopment of the area, he told them that there were some areas in Ibadan that were so underdeveloped that they would need 50 years of government attention to attain the same level of development in parts of Oke Ogun. It was not unusual to witness the Governor half prostrating for elders but yet affirming his rejection of their request at the same time. “E ma binu sir. Ko seese sir” (Don’t be angry sir, I cannot accede to your request, sir), he would say as he would repeatedly bow to the elders.

HIS GIFT OF THE GAB

Ajimobi had a facility for words. This was one of his strongest strengths. As Chief of Staff, it was my responsibility to prepare his Talking Points ahead of any major public appearance, where we reckoned that a formal speech was not necessary or when he so directed. I did this in concert with the relevant ministry or government agency and the duo of the Special Assistant (Media and Publicity), Dr Festus Adedayo and Senior Special Assistant (Public Affairs), Mr Toye Arulogun. The Governor would go through such notes shortly before stepping out of his office for the event if within the Government Secretariat or in his car while driving to the event. Every single time, he would leave us wondering whether he had previous knowledge of the event and had done extensive research on the subject. He would recall relevant life experiences, throw in related jokes and pass innuendos about some of the important dignitaries in the audience and then delve into the subject with the depth and dexterity of an expert in that field.

Ajimobi was a faithful student of Thomas Huxley, the 19th century English biologist famous for his maxim: “Learn something about everything and everything about something”

HIS UBIQUITOUS AGBADA

Ajimobi was a sartorialist. He was always impeccably dressed and eager to regale in the quality of his appearance. He tutored me on the importance of always having a cap on caftan each time I adorn one. He was always blunt to chastise a government official who appeared shabilly and once looked into the eye of a top official and asked him if he had just finished a bowl of fish. “ It is most appropriate to make utterances after a bowl of fish because you will leave the whole environment smelling”, he mildly complained when the official answered in affirmation. I remember many occasions when the Governor was reminded in the wee hours of the day to change from his flowing Agbada, and he would respond that he needed the Agbada to look good for his meetings, even at 3 a.m! He was always conscious of his stature and the need to look good at all times. “I have a small stature, and I am always the smallest in every gathering. What has helped me is my intellect and hard work”, he would say. He cared about his image and treated the media with particular respect. Although his automatic response to any request for money was a frowning “No”, he was always ready to accommodate requests of the media department and was regularly available to play role of a good host to visiting journalists to the state.

HIS JOKES

Ajimobi was a natural raconteur. He enjoyed jokes and always had bubbling belly laughs at good jokes. He equally liked to unwind after a hectic day. “Let us share a bottle of wine”, he would begin a process that could lead to hours of debates, controversies and brainstorming. He would have a good laugh when a guest or a cabinet member didn’t know what glass to use for which drink. “This is because you worked with …B and Sons (he would insert the name of an indigenous company in Ibadan to provoke protests from Ibadan businessmen in attendance). He would throw jabs at guests who became loose-tongued after a few glasses of wine. He would teach a guest which cutlery to use for which food, revealing how he had to learn all of this while he worked with Shell Petroleum.” I didn’t work with B and Sons..”, provoking another round of protest from indigenous Ibadan businessmen in attendance and the Governor would burst into hilarious laughter. He was good at putting people at ease. He would throw banter at the dress sense of officials, helping them to adorn the dress appropriately, regaling his audience how Mr Akanbi, his boss at National Oil, taught him the same lesson.

His sparring partner in many of his jokes was his wife whom he adoringly called “Florie”. Once in the early days of the administration, he returned home and surged forward to give his wife, who had come to the doorstep to receive him, a kiss. She walked away as if embarrassed by the gesture in the presence of aides in tow of the governor and the Governor retorted,” you mean you want to reject an executive kiss?; How many women have the privilege of being kissed by a governor”. The wife said he was right and officials who were in the Governor’s tow looked away, not knowing whether the kiss took place or not…

He had two favourite jokes. The first was about his wife setting up a motherless babies home. He always recalled telling his wife that while he appreciated the philanthropy behind the gesture, he had advised her to let him procreate the babies while she took care of them. “At least we will know their father if we don’t know their mothers!”, he would say to a bemused look from the wife.

His other favourite joke was about an armed robbery operation. The robbers had invaded a house, and the leader of the gang took instant notice of an expensive necklace on the lady of the house. At the end of the operation, the gang leader took an inventory of their loot but could not find the expensive necklace. He confronted the lady and she pointed at the member of the gang who yanked the necklace off her neck. They searched the culprit and found the necklace on him. In anger, the gang leader charged at him: “Awa wa sise, iwo wa jale!” (What impudence! We came here to work, and you are here stealing!).

Like every mortal, Governor Ajimobi had his flaws and weaknesses. May God forgive his sins, admit him to Al-jannah Firdaus and grant the family the fortitude to bear the irreparable loss.

Professor Akande, chairman of the board of commissioners of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), was chief of staff to Governor Ajimobi between June 2011 and September 2013.

Up Next

Ajimobi’s Image and Likeness of a True Aare of Ibadanland and That Picture I Never Took | By Wole Adejumo

Don't Miss

Group congratulates ex-Oyo commissioner, Olowofela on new appointment

Comments

Opinion

Doctors’ Strike and the Price of Human Life | By Olusegun Hassan

Published

1 week ago

October 23, 2026

Olusegun Hassan

The popular Yoruba saying, “Ẹni kan l’ọmọ,” meaning that only the person wearing the shoes knows where they pinch, recently took on a deeper meaning for me. Just last week, I experienced its true significance beyond its familiar place as an aphorism.

Popular sayings often remain mere expressions in our consciousness until we find ourselves at the receiving end of the experiences they describe. Similarly, systemic flaws and structural deficiencies in society may seem distant until we become victims of them. News of kidnapping is just another newspaper report until a loved one is abducted and the family is thrown into a desperate search for money to pay a ransom. In the same vein, the news that “doctors are on strike” may appear to be just another headline until someone close to us dies because urgent medical attention was unavailable as a result of the strike.

Nigeria’s story is replete with such unfortunate experiences, which have given rise to another familiar expression: “May Nigeria not happen to you.”

While the media landscape was still reeling from reports of the death of popular gospel singer Toluwanisings, who reportedly died on October 14, 2026, following an alleged lack of urgent medical attention during a doctors’ strike, I also lost a close relative two days later, on October 16, under circumstances involving the same lack of timely medical care.

She was an asthma patient who suffered an attack in the middle of the night. After receiving first aid, she was rushed to the nearest hospital, a teaching hospital, only to be turned away because doctors were on strike and none was available to attend to her. By the time the family reached the nearest private hospital, she had died. Her death left the entire family, myself included, traumatised.

These are only two cases among many similar tragedies that have occurred over the years. They raise a painful question: how many of these deaths could have been prevented if essential medical services had remained accessible?

I cannot help but wonder: what is the value of human life in this country? At what point did the sanctity of human life become secondary to demands for improved welfare by medical unions?

This is not to suggest that the grievances of doctors are illegitimate. Far from it. Medical professionals deserve fair remuneration, adequate facilities, safe working conditions and an environment that enables them to perform their duties effectively. The question, however, is whether the pursuit of these legitimate demands should come at such a devastating cost to human life, particularly when the fundamental purpose of the medical profession is to preserve life through the provision of appropriate healthcare.

It is a troubling paradox.

Doctors undoubtedly have the right to demand fair treatment and safe working conditions. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that protects patients from abandonment and avoidable harm. When patients die because essential medical services have been withdrawn without adequate safeguards, the ethical justification for the action becomes a serious matter for scrutiny.

The World Medical Association (WMA), an international body that promotes widely recognised ethical standards for physicians, upholds principles that include respect for human life and the dignity of patients. These principles underscore the responsibility of doctors to protect the health and well-being of those under their care, provide competent and timely treatment, prevent avoidable harm and act in their patients’ best interests.

These are not merely ideals about compassion. They are professional obligations that must continue to guide medical decisions, including during industrial disputes.

In Nigeria, the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) addressed this issue in January 2024, reportedly directing the heads of teaching hospitals, federal medical centres and specialised hospitals to ensure that industrial action did not result in the abandonment or premature discharge of patients.

Among the safeguards outlined were the following:

Accident and emergency departments must remain open and adequately staffed.
Emergency paediatric services, labour wards, neonatal units and intensive care units must continue to provide emergency and critical care.
Patients already admitted to hospital must not be discharged merely because a strike has commenced.
Patients with scheduled appointments before the strike must be attended to in accordance with the applicable directives.

These safeguards reinforce an important principle: the right to pursue employment-related demands does not extinguish a doctor’s professional obligation to protect patients from preventable harm.

Where emergency patients are turned away, critically ill patients are abandoned, or essential services are shut down without adequate arrangements for emergency care, the circumstances warrant investigation. Where evidence establishes a breach of professional obligations or applicable regulations, appropriate disciplinary or legal action should follow.

Similarly, when a patient dies after being denied emergency treatment during an industrial action, the circumstances surrounding the death deserve a thorough and impartial investigation. Where negligence, professional misconduct or a breach of applicable directives is established, appropriate sanctions should be imposed in accordance with the law and relevant professional regulations.

The point is simple: no legitimate grievance should justify abandoning a patient whose life is in immediate danger.

At this juncture, it is equally important to acknowledge the government’s share of the blame. While this article emphasises the ethical obligation of doctors to preserve human life, the government must also recognise that poor remuneration, unpaid allowances, inadequate medical facilities, excessive workloads and unsafe working conditions undermine doctors’ morale and their ability to provide quality healthcare.

The consequences are increasingly evident in Nigeria’s continuing loss of medical professionals to other countries.

In 2025, the Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Professor Muhammad Ali Pate, reportedly disclosed that more than 16,000 Nigerian doctors had emigrated over the preceding five to seven years, largely in search of better opportunities abroad. Furthermore, a 2025 report on Nigeria’s health statistics reportedly indicated that 4,193 doctors and dentists left the country in 2024 alone.

These departures deepen staffing shortages, increase the pressure on the doctors who remain and expose patients to longer waiting times and potentially avoidable deaths.

The government must therefore move beyond repeated negotiations and implement sustainable reforms. These should include the prompt payment of salaries and allowances, improved working conditions, adequate funding for public hospitals, transparent career progression and the effective implementation of agreements reached with medical unions.

The Federal Ministry of Health and relevant hospital authorities must also strengthen monitoring and oversight during industrial disputes to ensure that emergency and critical care services remain available in public hospitals. Patients in life-threatening conditions must not be turned away simply because doctors are on strike.

Ultimately, responsibility for Nigeria’s healthcare crisis cannot be placed entirely on one side. Doctors must uphold their professional and ethical obligations, while the government must fulfil its responsibility to create conditions in which those obligations can be discharged effectively.

Medicine is not an ordinary occupation. It carries a profound moral responsibility because, in certain circumstances, the timely intervention of a medical professional can make the difference between life and death. No employment grievance should be used to justify abandoning a patient whose life is in immediate danger.

The sanctity of human life demands responsibility from the doctors entrusted with treating patients and from the government authorities responsible for ensuring that appropriate treatment remains available.

A functional healthcare system depends on cooperation between these two critical stakeholders. When they fail to find common ground, it is the ordinary citizen who suffers the consequences. As the familiar saying goes, when two elephants fight, the grass suffers.

And trust me, I know what that suffering feels like. I have just experienced it.

Olusegun Hassan, Ph.D.
Public Policy Analyst and Social Commentator

Opinion

Oyo, Osun Petrol Price War: Why Fair Competition Should Matter

Published

1 week ago

October 22, 2026

Mega Icon

The decision by some filling stations in Oyo and Osun states to sell petrol at lower prices than their competitors has brought renewed attention to pricing practices in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector and, more importantly, to what consumers stand to gain when competition is allowed to work.

Investigations and enquiries into petrol prices in the two states revealed differences in pump prices, with some independent petroleum marketers (IPM) selling Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), popularly known as petrol, for about ₦1,375 per litre, while some competing stations charged about ₦1,385 per litre.

Although the difference is just ₦10 per litre, the savings are meaningful for motorists, commercial transport operators, artisans, traders and other residents who depend on petrol to earn a living.

For a commercial driver buying 40 litres, for instance, the price difference amounts to ₦400. For small businesses that rely on petrol-powered generators, repeated purchases at lower prices could provide some relief amid the rising cost of living. Across thousands of consumers and multiple purchases, modest savings can become a substantial reduction in household and business expenses.

However, findings from the enquiries suggest that some independent marketers who had previously sold petrol at relatively lower prices later adjusted their pump prices to match those of competing stations.

The development has prompted questions about what influences pricing decisions in the two states and whether consumers are being allowed to benefit fully from competition among petroleum marketers.

Information obtained during engagements with some marketers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also indicated that the leadership of the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) in the two states had expressed displeasure over the decision by some members to sell petrol below the prices charged by other filling stations.

The circumstances surrounding the reported position of the association’s leadership, however, require clarification from the relevant IPMAN officials. Their response is necessary to establish the facts, understand the basis of the reported concerns and give the association an opportunity to state its position.

THE CASE FOR FAIR COMPETITION

At the heart of the matter is a question that directly affects consumers: should a petroleum marketer who can legitimately sell petrol at a lower price be discouraged from doing so simply because competitors are charging more?

The answer should be guided by evidence, legality and consumer welfare. In a competitive market, businesses generally make pricing decisions based on their operating costs, supply arrangements, margins and commercial objectives. Where a marketer can sustainably offer a lower price while meeting all applicable regulatory, product-quality and safety requirements, consumers should be able to consider that option.

Fair competition is not merely a benefit to individual buyers. It creates pressure on businesses to control costs, improve efficiency and offer better value. A lower price from one marketer can encourage others to review their own costs and pricing decisions, potentially producing wider benefits for customers.

This does not mean that every low-priced offer is automatically sustainable or that marketers should ignore the economic realities of running their businesses. Differences in supply costs, transportation, location and other expenses may legitimately result in different pump prices.

The issue, therefore, is not whether every filling station should sell petrol at the same price. It is whether businesses can compete fairly, transparently and within the law, without undue pressure to abandon commercially viable prices that benefit consumers.

Any intervention that prevents legitimate price competition should be supported by clear evidence and a lawful, consumer-focused justification. Otherwise, the likely result is a narrower range of choices and less pressure on sellers to offer better prices.

THE BURDEN ON ORDINARY RESIDENTS

For many households and small businesses, petrol prices go beyond what appears on a filling station’s price board. Higher fuel costs can increase transportation fares, the cost of moving goods and the expense of running generators and other equipment.

Traders may have to spend more transporting their goods to markets, while commercial drivers face pressure from rising operating costs. Such expenses can eventually be passed on to consumers through higher prices for goods and services.

Against this background, any legitimate opportunity to reduce fuel expenses deserves serious attention.

Allowing genuine competition among petroleum marketers could offer some relief, particularly where consumers have access to reliable information about prices and can choose where to buy their fuel. The ability to compare prices is itself an important part of a functioning market.

At the same time, price differences should be examined in context. A lower pump price alone does not establish wrongdoing by competing stations, just as a higher price does not automatically amount to exploitation. Reliable evidence about supply costs, market conditions and the conduct of the parties concerned is needed to reach a fair conclusion.

The central point remains clear: where lower prices are lawful, sustainable and supported by quality and safety compliance, consumers should not be deprived of the benefit merely because uniformity is more convenient for sellers.

STAKEHOLDERS MUST CLARIFY THE ISSUES

The reported concerns over lower pump prices in Oyo and Osun call for open engagement among IPMAN leadership, independent marketers and other relevant stakeholders.

IPMAN officials in both states should be given the opportunity to explain whether any concerns were raised about members selling petrol below prevailing local prices and, if so, the reasons behind those concerns.

Independent marketers, on their part, should be prepared to explain how they arrive at their pump prices and demonstrate that their pricing practices are commercially sustainable and comply with relevant requirements.

The relevant regulatory authorities also have a role to play in ensuring that petroleum products meet quality and safety standards and that market participants operate within the applicable legal framework. They should also remain alert to any conduct that unlawfully restricts competition or misleads consumers.

No stakeholder should be condemned solely on the basis of an unverified allegation. Equally, concerns that could affect consumers’ access to competitively priced fuel should not be dismissed without proper examination.

A balanced approach requires both scrutiny and restraint: lower prices should be tested against evidence, while attempts to suppress legitimate competition should also face appropriate questions.

CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT OUT

Ultimately, the debate over petrol prices in Oyo and Osun should not become a contest between filling station owners. The interests of consumers must remain central.

Petroleum marketers need a business environment in which they can operate sustainably, recover legitimate costs and earn reasonable returns. Consumers, however, also deserve a marketplace where they can make informed choices and benefit from genuine competition.

If a filling station can lawfully and sustainably sell quality petrol at a lower price, that decision should be assessed on its merits rather than opposed simply because neighbouring stations charge more. Competition should not be treated as a problem merely because it exposes differences in pricing.

The way forward lies in transparency, fair competition and constructive engagement among stakeholders.

For residents struggling with the cost of transportation, food and other necessities, even modest savings matter. Ensuring that legitimate competition is allowed to work could help ease some of that pressure, while proper oversight can protect consumers from unsafe products and unsustainable practices.

The relevant question is whether all parties are prepared to put a fair and transparent marketplace ahead of unnecessary disputes over pricing. Consumers should not be asked to pay more simply to preserve uniformity where lawful competition can deliver better value.

Opinion

Governor Seyi Makinde’s Media Chat: A Hundred And Twenty Minutes Of Trash Talk | By Sola Abegunde

Published

2 weeks ago

October 13, 2026

Mega Icon

I knew that Governor Makinde would provide us with a hundred and twenty minutes of comic relief and at the same time, I knew he is bound to commit unforced errors which would further expose his shenanigans.

The outgoing Governor of Oyo state did not disappoint on both fronts.

Personally, I understand the need for him to have one final valedictory Media Chat.

The atmosphere might be too hot for him to even think of such luxury after the general election in 2027. So, if he’s got the opportunity now, why not take a shot at it?

I must however say that the Governor displayed his insensitivity right from the choice of the Studio the Chat was aired.

Shortly before the Media Chat commenced, I came across a release signed by the Chairman of the Nigeria Union of Journalist, NUJ, BCOS Chapel, Com. Ademola Balogun.

Com. Balogun was full of lamentations concerning the very terrible state of the Oyo state Broadcasting Corporations, BCOS.

He was of the very strong opinion that the BCOS should have meaningful opportunities to cover Government activities.

He also called on Governor Seyi Makinde to empower the BCOS to invest in modern studio, transmitting equipment, digital broadcasting facilities and online platforms.

Com. Ademola spoke extensively about Staff welfare and other issues.

Sadly, while Governor Seyi Makinde has been consistent in empowering a particular Radio station, the Broadcasting Corporations of Oyo state, BCOS has been dying slowly.

Unfortunately, I have no good news for Com. Ademola. His lamentations will definitely fall on stone deaf ears. It is too late for Governor Makinde to change his ways. I just pray that the Governor would not wake up one day and sold off whatever remains of the Corporation.

That is just by the way. Let me address Governor Makinde’s Media Chat for whatever it is worth. The Governor spent a whole two hours venting anger and spreading outright lies and half-truths.

I am surprised that Governor Makinde has not seen any reason for him to have a second thought about his awkward and reckless comments about the Law Profession.

I am saying this because, for the second time, his Deputy was sitting closely beside him and yet, he felt like it was humorous for him to take a dig at Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli, the All Progressives Congress, APC Gubernatorial candidate, regarding his misconceived failure as a Law practitioner.

He repeated the ignorant and reckless comments about Senator Alli, not being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and for that reason, according to Governor Seyi Makinde, the Oyo South Senator is not an accomplished Legal Practitioner.

He had made that same reckless comments a couple of weeks ago and at that time also, the Deputy Governor was beside him!

The respectable man is an accomplished Lawyer of many years of experience, who had trained a lot of successful Lawyers.

I also wonder, how people like Dr. Nureni Adeniran and Olasunkanmi Olaleye, who are also Lawyers and have been working with Governor Seyi Makinde over the years would feel about those reckless comments coming from their Boss.

If you want to follow Governor Seyi Makinde’s reasoning, if you are a teacher and you did not rise to the status of a School Principal or Head teacher, then, you’re a failure.

If you are a Military Personnel and you didn’t rise to the position of a General, you’re a failure!

Any time I saw the Governor arguing in this regard, I always asked myself if he was actually himself, because, for me, only a drunkard is capable of reasoning in that manner, or, perhaps, some young elements who had taken so much banned substances.

I have carefully analyzed the 120 minutes Media Chat and I saw that Governor Seyi Makinde spent so much time treating two issues.

The first, being his frustration about his perceived betrayal by president Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the second being his failed attempt to rewrite the Constitution of Nigeria regarding the financial autonomy for Local Governments.

The birthday boy tried to work him through the crisis at the Circular Road, but it was obvious that the main reasons behind Governor Makinde’s Media Chat were grounded on his firm beliefs that Tinubu breached certain agreements with him and others in 2023 and his warped opinion about how the Local Governments should operate within our Federation.

Let’s start with Governor Seyi Makinde’s allegations against Tinubu.

According to him, in 2023, an agreement was signed between certain individuals, including himself.

He said there was an agreement that a Government of National Unity would be formed by president Tinubu after he won the presidential election of 2023 and that he and the Governor of Lagos state, Babajide Sanwo-Olu were signatories to that agreement.

According to him, president Tinubu was not a signatory to the agreement but he was informed after the agreement was signed!

He went further to say that on the strength of that agreement, he presented Bimbo Adekambi as a Ministerial nominee because the president had earlier told him that he wanted to appoint the Minister for Budget and Planing from Oyo state.

To his chagrin and disappointment, president Tinubu settled for Bayo Adelabu and asked him to own the nomination of the former Minister for power, a request he claimed he rejected.

He therefore concluded that all the Ministers nominated from the South West are from Bourdilon.

I have carefully analyzed this confession by Governor Seyi Makinde and I have a few questions for him.

Why is it that Governor Seyi Makinde is the only one complaining about a breached agreement?

Why did it take him all these long to come out with this fact?

What was the criteria for the nomination of Bimbo Adekambi? Did he just take a random decision to choose Adekambi without a prior relationship between the two of them or what?

How does Governor Seyi Makinde want to convince any right thinking person that he believed an agreement would be binding on Tinubu on the strength of Governor Sanwo-Olu’s alleged signature?

For me, that doesn’t make any sense, most especially, for an ” accomplished Engr” like Seyi Makinde!

I am surprised that Governor Makinde leaves out what he benefited from the alignment with Tinubu in 2023.

Remove the alignment with Tinubu in 2023, Seyi Makinde was a goner and the fact that he was able to secure a second term in office ought to have been enough for him.

I am also surprised that Governor Makinde didn’t understand that he was advertising his penchant for serial betrayal and greed when he was relating the events that shaped his re-election in 2023.

It was all about him and the decisions he took, not only affected the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP alone, it also affected certain candidates of his party during the first ballot in 2023.

Now, to the issue of Local Government Autonomy.

Governor Seyi Makinde is a very funny individual. He was very clear about his position on Local Government Autonomy in 2023.

His position was that he never even believed in their existence and I was amused when the birthday boy was saying that despite his position on Local Government Autonomy in 2023, he was still able to win in 31 Local Governments, signifying the fact that the people of Oyo state believed Governor Makinde’s explanations.

I am extremely happy that Governor Seyi Makinde has not changed his opinion on how Local Governments should operate within the Federating units.

He is still stuck on the fact that the 33 Local Governments in Oyo state should be appendages to the State Government, even, in spite of the Judgment of the Supreme Court granting them full financial autonomy.

I am shocked that Governor Seyi Makinde could attempt to confuse what happened between the Lagos state Government when Tinubu was Governor of the state and the Federal Government during Obasanjo’s period, with the illegalities he has been perpetuating with the resources 33 Local Governments.

There is a clear distinction between both scenarios.

In the case of Tinubu as Governor of Lagos state, the Lagos state Government created more Local Governments and the Federal Government was of the opinion that the state Government was wrong to have done so.

As a result of this misunderstanding, the Federal Government stopped the monthly allocations for the Local Governments in Lagos state and it led to a Judicial dispute.

In the end, the Supreme Court held that the Local Governments created by the Lagos state Government were incohate, but it faulted the Federal Government for withholding the monthly allocations belonging to the Local Governments in Lagos state.

Lagos state Government thereafter recognized and administered the newly created Local Governments as Local Government Development Areas and many states have since copied the template, including Oyo state.

In the present scenario, the president, through the Attorney general of the Federation approached the Supreme Court and sought to secure full financial autonomy for the 774 Local Governments and the Supreme Court agreed to the request.

I have been asking myself, why is it that Governor Seyi Makinde is having problems with that judgement?

The monthly allocations released to the 33 Local Governments are released against their names.

Is Governor Seyi Makinde saying that it is proper for a Governor to still be the supervisor for the 33 Local Governments?

How does the judgment of the Supreme Court translate to the Federal Government trying to take control of the 774 Local Governments?

Yorubas will always say that a dog can not stand watch over two different buildings. ( Aja kii roro, ko so ojule meji po).

I was also surprised to hear Governor Seyi Makinde talking about the fact that, instead of full financial autonomy for the Local Governments, he preferred to discuss about how the Local Governments could be empowered to survive without monthly allocations from Abuja.

Haba! Governor Makinde!! Gently now.

You are depriving the Local Governments of their entitlements and you except them to thrive. How would that happen?

Why didn’t we start with the state? Can Oyo state survive without monthly allocations?

I think everyone can now see that Bimbo Adekambi as Governor, would never allow the Local Governments to breathe.

On the other hand, Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli has promised to guarantee full financial autonomy for the 33 Local Governments and the implementation of the policy requires no rocket science. All it requires is the will.

There is an existing judgment of the Supreme Court which has outlined the steps to be taken by any willing state Government.

Sarafa Alli only needs to direct relevant stakeholders at the Local Governments to comply with the judgment and that is the end of the matter.

What is so difficult in that, if you are not covetous?

I might have to do this piece in series but I will like to warn the residents of the Circular Road.

You heard Governor Seyi Makinde. He is promising you nothing.

My only problem with him is his attempts to shift the blame of the chaos he orchestrated at the Circular Road on the late Governor Abiola Ajimobi.

He even said that that the Government of Ajimobi defrauded residents of the Circular Road!

Sometimes, people like Governor Seyi Makinde needs no one to enchant them. Their character is an enchantment on itself.

If you’re saying that the Governments of the late Ajimobi defrauded residents of the Circular Road, is Bimbo Adekambi not an integral part of that Government and that is before you begin to ask the Governor for proofs.

I enjoyed Governor Seyi Makinde’s valedictory Media Chat, while looking forward to the new era awaiting him next year.

My father used to tell us that the mouth of the liar does not ooze blood. ( Enu opuro kii seje).

By the way, I saw that Governor Seyi Makinde never mentioned anything about the report of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the abduction of Teachers and Pupils of Yawota and Esinele communities of Oriire Local Government.

How far now?

Sola Abegunde.